Cartographic Projection
every map is wrong, and by exactly how much
Figure

The error of a spherical formula is twice the flattening

Drawn here at the parameters it defaults to, with every essay that calls it.
The error of a spherical formula is twice the flattening. The worst angular deformation of the spherical Mercator formulae applied to each body's own latitudes, against that body's flattening, on logarithmic axes. The points are measured by differencing the projection; the line is 2f radians, which is not fitted. The two agree to a third of a per cent for Mercury, the Earth and Mars, and depart by 3.3 and 5.1 per cent for Jupiter and Saturn, whose flattenings are too large for the first term to be the whole story. The site's headline number — 0.3848° on Earth — is an instance of this law rather than a fact about Web Mercator.

The worst angular deformation of the spherical Mercator formulae applied to each body's own latitudes, against that body's flattening, on logarithmic axes. The points are measured by differencing the projection; the line is 2f radians, which is not fitted. The two agree to a third of a per cent for Mercury, the Earth and Mars, and depart by 3.3 and 5.1 per cent for Jupiter and Saturn, whose flattenings are too large for the first term to be the whole story. The site's headline number — 0.3848° on Earth — is an instance of this law rather than a fact about Web Mercator.

It is drawn by planetary-figure with show: "body-projection" — one member of a family of 5 figures that share a generator, so the drawing above is what that generator returns when it is asked for this one and given nothing else.

3 essays call it. Every call below passes it something, because a placement that passes nothing draws whichever member of the family the generator happens to default to rather than the one its essay argues about.

Where it is called

Changing this changes every one of these figures.

The error of a spherical formula is twice the flattening. The worst angular deformation of the spherical Mercator formulae applied to each body's own latitudes, against that body's flattening, on logarithmic axes. The points are measured by differencing the projection; the line is 2f radians, which is not fitted. The two agree to a third of a per cent for Mercury, the Earth and Mars, and depart by 3.3 and 5.1 per cent for Jupiter and Saturn, whose flattenings are too large for the first term to be the whole story. The site's headline number — 0.3848° on Earth — is an instance of this law rather than a fact about Web Mercator. What the numbers refer to

The same projection on a different body

A projection's distortion does not depend on the body's size at all — only on its flattening — so Web Mercator's 0.3848° of angular deformation is not a fact about Web Mercator. It is 2f radians, and the same mistake made on Mars measures 0.6765°, on Jupiter 7.68°, and on a body scaled ten times larger than Mars the identical number to twelve figures.

 Seven cuts of the same size, in different places on one body. The body's own colatitude and longitude, with the seven windows drawn on it. Each covers the same surface area to 0.24 per cent — the longitude extent is divided by sin θ and a scale is then solved per window — so their sizes are held and only their positions differ. Each is shaded by the areal spread of the conformal map solved on it, listed beside the grid and running from 1.03 to 1.36. The darker windows are the worse ones, and they are the ones over the body's lobes. What the numbers refer to

Cuts of the same size in different places

Where a body is cut decides how well it can be mapped, by a factor of ten — established with five windows of five different sizes, so *where* and *how much* were confounded and the factor could have been entirely about extent. Held to the same surface area to a quarter of a per cent, the answer survives at a factor of 1.32, and what predicts it is the curvature the window encloses.

 The solve's cost is a U in the shape; the curvature is not. Solid: how many conjugate-gradient steps the conformal solve needs, against the window's aspect ratio, at constant surface area. It has a minimum at the square window — 174 steps — and rises to 265 and 275 at the two extremes, which are elongated by the same factor in opposite directions. Dashed: the total Gaussian curvature the window encloses, on its own scale, which falls from 0.311 to -0.012 across the same sweep and is least at one end of it. The cost has its minimum where the window is square and the curvature has its minimum somewhere else, so whatever is making the solve expensive is not what is making the map spread. What the numbers refer to

A long window and a square one

Rung nine held the patch's area and found that where the cut goes still changes the map by a third, with the curvature it encloses predicting the change at r = 0.969. It recorded that it had held area and curvature and not shape. Sweeping the shape at constant area separates two things that had looked like one: the map is curvature and the cost is shape.

The whole library